To the editor,

My library file dates back to 2005. Letters to the editor, as is mine, are combinations of opinions and facts.

▪ For approximately 70 years, the City of Dayton operated the Dayton Memorial Library supported by city taxpayers.

▪ In 2005 the county voted to form a taxing district to help fund the library to improve services.

▪ The City and the Columbia County Rural Library District (CCRLD) made an agreement to mutually operate the library. The county had the bulk of the cash, and the city retained their building and all the pre-county district materials, furnishing and equipment. The city had a non-voting representative on the library board to represent the city's interest.

▪ In 2008 the rural library district board of directors approached the city council and proposed that the city join the rural district. By annexing the city into the rural library district, the city taxpayers would tax themselves the same as the county, but the city would give up all control and would transfer ownership of the building and its contents to the District on Jan. 1, 2010. The contract for mutual operation would continue with the city until the District began receiving tax money in 2011. (Information from "Shall the City of Dayton Annex into the CCRLD" pamphlet dated August 18, 2009.)

▪ Before the vote, however, the city (along with the city attorney) wisely developed an agreement with the library district. Condition 2.4 "If the District dissolves pursuant to RCW 27.12.320, the Dayton Memorial Library building and the real property the building is on; the pre-annexation collection, all fixtures, and all equipment that is part of the building, and all future Hedwig Davis, Peabody Endowment, and Delany Trust income would return to the City at no cost, so that the City could resume providing Library Services to the City of Dayton."

▪ Some citizens supported joining the rural library district. Other citizens did not support the city giving up control. I favored continuing joint management between the county and city with the city contributing just the building, materials and furnishing (no taxpayer funds from the city taxpayers). I encouraged (via a 2008 letter to the editor) that the city residents use their possible tax money to form a new and separate district to fund pool maintenance or perhaps a flood control district. The county funds alone would be enough to generously support the library.

▪ However, the CCRLD board promoted the efficiency of total control. In 2009 the city residents voted to tax themselves to purchase library services from the county rural library district and gave up control. They have been taxing themselves and 'purchasing services' since that time. (Current funding is approximately $372,000 from the county taxpayers and $100,000 from city taxpayers.)

▪New library policies were developed starting in 2008. These policies are similar to the policies across America, and it is my opinion that 'our' policies were not entirely developed locally.

▪In the past year and a half, certain books began to appear in the children's library. I have seen the books. I have a picture of them shelved along with popular children's magazines such as 'Ranger Rick' and 'American Girl'. These sexually explicit books raised concerns. Also of concern was the book for the youngest children entitled "Our Skin". Our Skin describes the nature and characteristics of people according to their skin color. The book portrays people with white skin in a negative way. Upon hearing the story, a grandma I know told me that her grandson asked her what color was his skin? It is my opinion that children do not even notice skin color.

▪ Residents started attending library board meetings complaining about the number and nature of books that were showing up on the children's level of the library. They asked for change in placement not banning. Residents learned that board policy allowed them to comment at library board meetings, but they were not allowed to ask questions. Protocol demanded that each book must be individually challenged and not as a group. Eleven books were challenged, and all found by the director, to be suitable for the children's level. One book was brought to the board for 're-consideration' and the board voted 4 to 1 that the book should stay in the children level.

▪In March, the library director and board chairman presented (without full board knowledge nor approval) 'One Library's Journey' at the state library meeting. This was a report on the challenges they were facing from local citizens.

▪ In June of this year, frustrated residents signed a petition to dissolve the library TAXING DISTRICT. Enough signatures were gathered to put the proposal on the ballot in November.

▪On August 29, 2023, a lawsuit was filed to prevent the proposal from reaching the ballot. The main concern was that the city residents, by Washington State law, will not be able to vote on the proposal to dissolve the library district. In my opinion, if the library TAXING DISTRICT were dissolved, the city residents would no longer be able to purchase services, however, they also would no longer be paying taxes for those services. If you shop at a store and buy items and the store owners decide to close, you have no vote just because you were a customer. Unfortunately, the city gave up total control in 2009. If the petition is not allowed on the ballot, the county residents will be denied the opportunity to vote on the proposal.

▪ Of final importance RCW 27.04.055 states that any public funded library serving more than 4,000 patrons, must have a librarian approved by the state of Washington. (Approval is given to those graduating from an 'American Library Assn approved college' or by passing a test). When the city joined the county, our combined population made us subject to this law. In a recent Waitsburg Times article, we learned that the Secretary of State has proposed legislation that would give librarians, not library boards, nor city councils, the authority to decide what materials should be included or removed from library collections. "It shouldn't be for a city council member or library board to make the decision of a single book being removed," Deputy Secretary of State Randy Bolerjack stated.

We have spent the past year locally discussing and disagreeing about what books can be in the children's library section. In the future this might be moot, none of us would have any input whatsoever.

Please be informed.

Marcene Hendrickson

Dayton, Wash.

To the editor,

I am writing as a Dayton resident/voter/taxpayer, very concerned about City Councilwoman Laura Aukerman's behavior at the council meeting on 9/12/2023. At the end of the meeting, Aukerman had much to say about the library and how community members treat each other. She called for kindness and civility. All lovely sentiments. After her 'speech', public comment was opened, and Elise Severe began by saying she agreed with Aukerman's earlier statement about the unfairness of taxation without representation. Immediately, in my view, Aukerman lost her decorum as a council person and verbally attacked Severe, interrupting, and talking over Severe's allotted time. Her behavior was egregious enough that Mayor Weatherford interceded so that Severe could finish her comment.

In my opinion, this isn't the first time Aukerman has demonstrated an inability to control her temper at a public meeting or during public comment periods. She seems to have behavior control issues when bumping up against people or ideas that do not align with her worldview.

Due to experience, I do not believe that Councilwoman Aukerman can be neutral, calm, rational, thoughtful, or KIND regarding any city decisions related to library issues.

I believe Aukerman has violated rule 16 in the Council Rules of Procedures and Ethics Handbook, which addresses the Appearance of Fairness. It reads: The appearance of fairness doctrine is a rule of law that requires government decision-makers to conduct non-court hearings and proceedings in a way that is fair and unbiased in both appearance and in fact.

In my opinion, Aukerman DID NOT appear unbiased or fair to Severe. Her reaction seemed to be based on Severe's association with Neighbors United for Progress and the lawsuit to block Proposition 2, the measure to close the library, from the November ballot.

To the best of my knowledge, Aukerman is tied with the Columbia County Conservatives and signed the first petition to propose dissolving the CCRLD. She stands with those who would like to see the library district dissolved.

We need leaders who can overcome their personal, theological, and ideological agendas and serve the community for the betterment of ALL, not just those who think, look, vote, or worship as they do. We need leaders that listen when their constituents speak, especially when they don't agree. That ability to listen and not react, not attack, and not take other people's opinions personally is paramount to being a good leader. I do not believe Aukerman possesses those qualities.

I ask Mayor Weatherford to disqualify Aukerman, per rule 16, from voting on or participating in any city decisions related to the library.

Vicki Zoller

Dayton, Wash.